Transnational entrepreneurship: opportunity identification and venture creation Heléne Lundberg 1 & Anneli Rehnfors 1 Published online: 17 April 2018 # The Author(s) 2018 Abstract The present case study focuses on entrepreneurs who have migrated from one developed economy (Sweden or Finland) to another developed economy (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR)). In contrast to the dom- inating understanding, we find that the transnational entrepreneurial incentives were opportunity driven rather than necessity based. The opportunity types identified varied, but indicate the importance of service opportunities, a type often left out of studies and classifications. A prevalent characteristic of transna- tional entrepreneurship is opportunity recognition based on introducing processes or products to the country of residence, familiar from the country of origin or based on use of the entrepreneurs’ contacts in the home country. This study showed, however, that although this was the case for two entrepreneurs, some identified opportunities for acting in the opposite direction, or did both import and export. Notably, there was also a fourth category, offering business- facilitating services, bridging differing cultural contexts in relationship- middlemen positions. For these entrepreneurs, there was thus no obvious Bdomestic market^ from the start as assumed in traditional internationalization theories. Furthermore, although their businesses started on a limited scale be- tween two countries, they quickly grew and entered other country markets. These transnational businesses thus represent forms of born globals not included in the high-tech business models often associated with such firms. Our findings finally lend support to arguments that a business-favorable institutional environment facilitates and encourages entrepreneurship. Keywords Transnational entrepreneurship . Opportunity type . Institutional environment . Immigrants . Service . Relationship-middlemen position . Born global J Int Entrep (2018) 16:150–175 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-018-0228-5 * Heléne Lundberg [email protected]1 CER, Department of Business, Economics and Law, Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall, Sweden
Transcript
Transnational entrepreneurship: opportunityidentification and venture creation
Heléne Lundberg1 & Anneli Rehnfors1
Published online: 17 April 2018# The Author(s) 2018
Abstract The present case study focuses on entrepreneurs who have migrated fromone developed economy (Sweden or Finland) to another developed economy(Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR)). In contrast to the dom-inating understanding, we find that the transnational entrepreneurial incentiveswere opportunity driven rather than necessity based. The opportunity typesidentified varied, but indicate the importance of service opportunities, a typeoften left out of studies and classifications. A prevalent characteristic of transna-tional entrepreneurship is opportunity recognition based on introducing processesor products to the country of residence, familiar from the country of origin orbased on use of the entrepreneurs’ contacts in the home country. This studyshowed, however, that although this was the case for two entrepreneurs, someidentified opportunities for acting in the opposite direction, or did both importand export. Notably, there was also a fourth category, offering business-facilitating services, bridging differing cultural contexts in relationship-middlemen positions. For these entrepreneurs, there was thus no obviousBdomestic market^ from the start as assumed in traditional internationalizationtheories. Furthermore, although their businesses started on a limited scale be-tween two countries, they quickly grew and entered other country markets. Thesetransnational businesses thus represent forms of born globals not included in thehigh-tech business models often associated with such firms. Our findings finallylend support to arguments that a business-favorable institutional environmentfacilitates and encourages entrepreneurship.
Keywords Transnational entrepreneurship . Opportunity type . Institutionalenvironment .
Immigrants . Service . Relationship-middlemen position . Born global
J Int Entrep (2018) 16:150–175https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-018-0228-5
Internationalization is occurring on several levels in the globalizing world of our times.There are internationalizing enterprises, but also a vast flow of individuals migrating toother countries. In learning to master institutional and cultural differences between thecountry of origin (COO) and the country of residence (COR), opportunities for venturecreation may be identified and developed by migrants. This form of entrepreneurship isusually neglected in traditional internationalization research (Drori et al. 2009), buttransnational entrepreneurship addresses this topic, that is, Bentrepreneurial activities thatare carried out in a cross-national context, and initiated by actors who are embedded in atleast two different social and economic arenas^ (Drori et al. 2009, p. 1001).
Transnational entrepreneurship deals with first-generation immigrants and represents aspecific type of entrepreneurship in the sense that the first business exchange usually takesplace between the entrepreneur’s COR and COO. The choice of market is thus neither theresult of serendipity or an unsolicited request from a country market (Merrilees et al. 1998)nor a result of formal screening and planning (Delmar and Shane 2003). It is, rather, aneconomic behavior resulting from knowledge of two different institutional and culturalcontexts (Welter 2011). A transnational entrepreneur can, for instance, import productsfrom the COO to the COR (e.g., Aliaga-Isla and Rialp 2012).
Although entrepreneurs are constantly scouting for opportunities in their environ-ments (Hilmersson and Papaioannou 2015), the context has rarely been studied inconnection with opportunity recognition (Lee 2015). Since the institutional contextconstitutes a significant factor in the progress of immigrant entrepreneurship, it shouldbe taken into account (Aliaga-Isla and Rialp 2013). Most studies have focused onmigrants moving from less-developed economies to developed economies (Aliaga-Islaand Rialp 2013). The case study reported on in this paper therefore adheres to the callfor qualitative studies addressing other contexts (Aliaga-Isla and Rialp 2013) byfocusing on migrants from two developed Nordic economies (Sweden and Finland)now living in a developed economy in Asia (the Hong Kong Special AdministrativeRegion (HKSAR)).
Furthermore, the immigrant entrepreneurship literature devotes little attention tointernational entrepreneurial opportunities (Vinogradov and Jørgensen 2017). Althoughtransnational entrepreneurship as a phenomenon is not new (e.g., Kyle 1999), we stilllack knowledge on the opportunity identification process, opportunity types, and whytransnational entrepreneurs choose to start particular types of ventures (Sequiera et al.2009; Aliaga-Isla and Rialp 2013). Moreover, the literature at present tends to describeimmigrant entrepreneurs as being driven into their entrepreneurship by negative cir-cumstances, such as lack of knowledge and unemployment—in other words, entrepre-neurship by necessity rather than in response to an opportunity (Aliaga-Isla and Rialp2013). It has also been noted that in the literature on immigrant entrepreneurship, theirfirms are assumed to be small and unimportant (Dana and Morris 2007; Sequeira et al.2009). In a multilevel approach aiming to deepen our understanding of the process ofopportunity identification and the varying types of opportunities developed into bornglobal firms by transnational entrepreneurs, the present study explores individualcharacteristics of seven transnational entrepreneurs, the types of opportunities (firms)developed, and the impact of the institutional and cultural contexts they acted within.The findings contribute to internationalization theory in general, but also to the
emerging field of transnational entrepreneurship, by providing a more nuanced pictureof transnational entrepreneurs, opportunity types, and born global ventures. In thefollowing, theoretical considerations are presented, followed by the research approachof the present study, its findings, and finally, a section presenting a discussion andconclusions, including limitations and managerial implications.
Theoretical considerations
Opportunity identification
Entrepreneurship originates in opportunity development. Some opportunities arelocated or discovered, while others result from a creative process emerging fromthe entrepreneur’s ideas and visions (Zahra et al. 2005). The opportunity conceptis thus generally related to value creation and competitive imperfections, and ithas been divided into two main types: innovation opportunities (related to crea-tion) and arbitrage opportunities (related to alertness and discovery of marketimperfections) (Mainela et al. 2014; Kirzner 1973). In either case, opportunityrecognition is regarded as a key aspect of the entrepreneurial process (Mainelaet al. 2014; Shane and Venkatamaran 2000). The opportunity concept is neverthe-less often applied without much precision; at times, even a definition is lacking(Mainela et al. 2014). It has, however, been argued that international entrepre-neurship focuses on outgoing entrepreneurial activity, while immigrant entrepre-neurship mainly deals with incoming entrepreneurial activity (Emontspool andServais 2017; Etemad 2004). It has also been argued that the more tangible theoffer is (e.g., goods vs. service), the more likely the firm is to internationalize(Cloninger and Oviatt 2007). Within transnational entrepreneurship, four differentfirm types have been discussed: financial services, import/export of raw materialsor goods, cultural enterprises, and manufacturing firms (Zhou 2004).
In the internationalization literature, few empirical studies have addressed theprocess of opportunity identification and development, and the contributions fromentrepreneurship research suffer from a largely domestic focus in this respect(Chandra et al. 2009). Furthermore, although individual characteristics are regardedas key to internationalization (Jones et al. 2011), international entrepreneurship hasseldom focused on the individual entrepreneurs themselves (Sequiera et al. 2009; Droriet al. 2006). Entrepreneurial qualities seem to be influenced by the experiential impactof the upbringing, the environment, and the education and work experiences, resultingin possession of certain knowledge and capability to recognize, manage, and act onentrepreneurial opportunities (Shane 2000). Interaction with experienced entrepreneurscan, for instance, convey a message that starting a business is a career option and thatopportunities may be worth paying attention to (Gnyawali and Fogel 1994). Likewise,discussions with family and friends can prepare individuals for entrepreneurship (Shane2003). In the case of transnational entrepreneurs, the immigration experience is usuallyrelated to their venture creation (Drori et al. 2006).
It has furthermore been argued that relevant prior knowledge is key to opportunityrecognition (e.g., Shane and Venkataraman 2000). Knowledge can be gained in twoways: experientially from acting on an opportunity or from others (Eriksson et al.
152 Lundberg H., Rehnfors A.
1997). Eriksson et al. identified three types of experiential knowledge in an interna-tional business context: experiential knowledge of clients, the market, and competitors(foreign business knowledge); experiential knowledge of government, institutionalframeworks, rules, norms, and values (foreign institutional knowledge); and experien-tial knowledge of the firm’s capability and resources to engage in international oper-ations (internationalization knowledge). Taken together, they have been called a per-son’s international orientation (Dichtl et al. 1990). The third type is only in play if theentrepreneur, or any employee in a leading position, has previous experience ofconducting international business. As the type and depth of knowledge varies betweenindividuals, each person is characterized by a certain knowledge corridor that decideswhether opportunities can be identified or not—and if so, how they will be judged(Shane 2000; Venkataraman 1997). A transnational entrepreneur may have foreignbusiness knowledge from previous work or travel experiences and has institutionalknowledge of at least two contexts (COO and COR). There is thus a certain interna-tional orientation from the start.
In terms of knowledge developed by learning from others (Eriksson et al. 1997),human capital, often measured as years of formal education, is often used as a predictorof an individual’s ability to identify and develop entrepreneurial opportunities (Shane2003; Vinogradov and Kolvereid 2007). However, in the immigrant entrepreneurshipliterature, reports on empirical evidence of the effect of human capital on immigrants’propensity to start a business are contradictory (Vinogradov and Jørgensen 2017). Itseems likely that individuals born and raised in a developed economy have a personalhistory, and thus a human capital, that differs from that of individuals born and raised ina less-developed economy.
The ability to comprehend cultural differences and adapt one’s behavior (Johansonand Vahlne 2009) has furthermore been studied through the concepts of a globalmindset, cultural intelligence, and cross-cultural competence (Zahra et al. 2005). Ithas been shown that increased knowledge and experience expand the capability ofmanaging institutional contextual influences, and that embeddedness in the foreigncontext boosts the cultural intelligence of entrepreneurs, forming an internationalmindset and personal cross-cultural competence (Zahra et al. 2005; Johanson et al.2006). Furthermore, as a result of confronting two different contexts, cognitive alert-ness capabilities (Kirzner 1979) for effective scanning and interpretation of interna-tional opportunities also develop. The migration experience can thus give transnationalentrepreneurs an extraordinary creative, social, and cultural capital (Terjesen and Elam2009), resulting in a more cosmopolitan constitution of transnational identity (Wongand Ng 2002). Bridging different national contexts has been found to be favorable foropportunity recognition and venture creation (George et al. 2016). More specificknowledge is, however, required regarding how the personal history of the transna-tional entrepreneur and the contexts represented by the COO and COR affect the typeof opportunity identified and the further development of the created venture.
Transnational ventures
As a field of practice, international entrepreneurship has a far-reaching history (e.g.,Kyle 1999), but the scholarly counterpart is quite recent (Etemad 2016). The processmodel, developed by Johanson and Vahlne in 1977, has been very influential. It
proposes that a firm enters a new market gradually and only after securing aposition in its domestic market. In this process, reactive experiential learning aboutforeign markets is the key, since it reduces uncertainties associated with entering anew country market. Furthermore, firms are expected to start their internationali-zation with foreign markets that are close to the domestic market in terms ofpsychic distance, defined as Bfactors that make it difficult to understand foreignenvironments^ (Johanson and Vahlne 2009, p. 1412). The process model(Johanson and Vahlne 1977) was later merged with a network perspective(Johanson and Mattsson 1987; Johanson and Vahlne 2009) into viewing interna-tionalization as a process, whereby a firm establishes and develops its foreignmarket positions through its foreign network partners. However, in entering aforeign market’s network, a liability of network outsidership will be a major sourceof uncertainty.
Network studies have repeatedly shown that relationship development is a time- andeffort-consuming process (Johanson and Vahlne 2009). Relationships, both businessand private, are hard to copy and may therefore represent important and valuable firmassets (Dyer and Sing 1998). Johanson and Vahlne (2009, p. 1414) further underlinethat Bthe larger the psychic distance, other things being equal, the more difficult it is tobuild new relationships,^ due to the so-called liability of foreignness (Hymer 1976;Zaheer 1995). The liability of foreignness is usually defined as Barising from theunfamiliarity of the environment, from cultural, political, and economic differences,and from the need for coordination across geographic distance, among other factors^(Zaheer 1995, p. 341).
In sum, these perspectives view the first step of internationalization as entering anunfamiliar foreign market from a base in the COO. There is thus a domestic operationin the COO from the start. By contrast, transnational entrepreneurship addressesentrepreneurship originating in two known country markets, often in the form of exportfrom the well-known COO to a fairly well-known COR. The transnational entrepreneurthus acts internationally from the start. The applicability of traditional (gradual) inter-national entrepreneurship theory on transnational entrepreneurship can therefore not betaken for granted.
Born globals and international new ventures
In the 1990s, the gradual internationalization process, initiated after a period ofdomestic operation, was questioned in the light of reports on so-called bornglobals (Rennie 1993), that is, firms characterized by having export as the primarygoal of the firm soon after, or even from, its inception, and so-called internationalnew ventures, Bbusiness organizations that, from inception, seek to derive asignificant competitive advantage from the use of resources and sale of outputsin multiple countries^ (Oviatt and McDougall 1994, p. 49). Later, Knight andCavusgil (2004, p. 124) presented an often-cited definition of born globals:Bbusiness organizations that, from or near their founding, seek superior interna-tional business performance from the application of knowledge-based resources tothe sale of outputs in multiple countries.^ Born global firms are often described ashighly innovative, with global technology competence (e.g., Freeman et al. 2006;Knight and Cavusgil 2004; Moen and Servais 2002; Rennie 1993).
154 Lundberg H., Rehnfors A.
Transnational entrepreneurship implies creating a born global firm from inception.Taken together, the dominating definitions of born global and international new ventureencompass seven criteria (Welch et al. 2016): (a) early commencement of internation-alization, (b) competitive advantage/performance as the motive, (c) use of resourcesoutside one’s home country, (d) sale of outputs outside one’s home country, (e)operation in multiple countries (geographical spread), (f) small size, and (g) technologyorientation. Notably, transnational enterprises fulfill all these criteria, except perhapstechnology orientation. However, the Bhome country^ part of the definition presup-poses that the entrepreneur is acting from his/her COO, which in transnational entre-preneurship is not the case. Transnational entrepreneurship thus has a lot in commonwith these Bborn global forms^ of international entrepreneurship, but internationalentrepreneurship has seldom focused on the individual entrepreneurs themselves(Sequiera et al. 2009; Drori et al. 2006). By contrast, transnational entrepreneurshipputs emphasis on the individual entrepreneur and on the impact of two specificinstitutional structures: the COO and the COR (Drori et al. 2009), often focusing onthe entrepreneurs’ contacts in the home country (Portes et al. 2002).
In addition to transnational entrepreneurship, a number of similar fields haveemerged, focusing on ethnic, international ethnic, or diaspora entrepreneurs (e.g.,Aldrich and Waldinger 1990; Elo and Riddle 2016; Kloosterman 2000). It is noted,however, that instead of addressing entrepreneurial opportunities, research focusing onthese entrepreneurs has mainly addressed ethnicity and Bcauses and consequences,^such as self-employment, social networks, policy, gender, human capital characteristics,demographic factors, and history (Ilhan-Nas et al. 2011).
Transnational entrepreneurship is an emerging field that needs further researchpinpointing the distinctive features of this form of entrepreneurship (Drori et al.2009). Presently, almost all studies deal with immigration from less-developed coun-tries to advanced economies (Aliaga-Isla and Rialp 2013). Furthermore, immigrantentrepreneurs are usually pictured as being driven into their entrepreneurship bynegative circumstances, such as lack of knowledge and unemployment (Aliaga-Islaand Rialp 2013). Their entrepreneurship is thus often presented as a subsistence activity(Emontspool and Servais 2016; Meir and Baskind 2006; Viswanathan and Rosa 2007),and their firms are assumed to be small and unimportant (Dana and Morris 2007;Sequeira et al. 2009).
Institutional and cultural contexts
Answering to calls for contextualized studies of opportunity identification and devel-opment (e.g., Lee 2015), the present article considers international opportunity devel-opment as context-embedded. Contexts, that is, circumstances, conditions, situations,or environments that are external to a phenomenon and enable and constrain it, cutacross levels of analysis (Welter 2010). Different nations’ institutionalized arrange-ments of organizational, regulatory, and social contexts form disparate business sys-tems. The transnational entrepreneur who is embedded in these institutional arrange-ments has to handle dual systems from the start, and the entrepreneurial actions andbusiness operations are either hampered or supported by the systems (Tang 2008;Yeung 2002). Certain institutional aspects, such as stable political environments;simplified business laws; reduced bureaucratic requirements; fewer entry procedures;
and modernized, efficient business registration, are seen as supportive for entrepre-neurship and entrepreneurial opportunities (Klapper et al. 2004). Likewise, governmentsupport, government transparency, and legal rules positively affect international entre-preneurial capacity (Zhang et al. 2017).
Culture is generally defined as a set of shared values, beliefs, and expectedbehaviors (Hofstede 1980, 2010). Learning to master contextual influences ofnational culture(s) (Zahra et al. 2005) and gaining knowledge of business system(s)(Yeung 2002) and the Brules of the game^ of the environment of a foreign country(Ilhan-Nas et al. 2011) requires learning and behavioral adaption (Johanson andVahlne 2009). Environmental factors such as social and political regulatory con-texts and cultural values affect entrepreneurs’ processes of opportunity recognition(George et al. 2016) and impact on the behavior and processes of entrepreneurshipwithin the Brules of game^ of a country (Ilhan-Nas et al. 2011). In sum, Btheinstitutional environment defines and limits entrepreneurial opportunities^ (Burtonet al. 2010, p. 10), but, surprisingly, international entrepreneurship research has notgiven much attention to the role of the institutional environment in opportunityidentification and firm creation (Chiles et al. 2007).
Research approach
The chosen method
The present study is qualitative, based on the viewpoint of the entrepreneur (Pratt 2009)while also considering the importance of context for understanding (Welter 2011,2012). The study objects (i.e., cases) are transnational entrepreneurs who have migratedfrom a developed economy to another developed economy. The case study design waschosen, as it covers a real-life environment and enables both cause-and-effect and in-depth explanations (Yin 2013). The case study method is suitable for investigation ofactions, such as opportunity recognition and development, in the environment where ittakes place (Welch et al. 2011), as well as how opportunity recognition operates in asituation where behaviors cannot be manipulated through experimental design (Shane2000). Further, the approach is common in recent studies in international entrepreneur-ship and transnational entrepreneurship, as well as in opportunity recognition research(Coviello 2006; Chandra et al. 2009; Hilmersson and Papaioannou 2015; Kontinen andOjala 2011; Shane 2000; Terjesen and Elam 2009).
Multiple cases yield more robust theory than single-case research, as they enablecomparisons among a variety of empirical evidence that can clarify whether findingsare valid for more than one specific case (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007). The chosennumber of cases (7) is within the range (4–10) recommended by Eisenhardt (1989) formultiple-case studies.
Answering calls for further research on the individual level of transnational entre-preneurship (e.g., Sequiera et al. 2009), data gathering was conducted by semi-struc-tured, open-ended interviews of individual immigrants starting a born global firm intheir COR. According to Yeung (1995, p. 314), for Binternational business research,interviewing is probably the most useful and direct method. The beauty of this methodlies in its validity (i.e., dealing directly with decision makers and the richness of
156 Lundberg H., Rehnfors A.
information collected) and its reliability (i.e., replicable in practice)^ and further, Bthequalitative personal interview method performs its function as one of the best and mostsuitable methods in international business research in an Asian urban context.^
In contrast to most transnational entrepreneurship studies, focusing on immigrantsmoving from developing countries into developed countries, four Finnish and threeSwedish immigrant entrepreneurs in Hong Kong were chosen for this study. Althoughspeaking different languages, these Nordic individuals come from societies withcomparable educational, institutional, entrepreneurial, economical, regulatory, and cul-tural environments, Finland being under Swedish rule for almost 700 years (1157–1809 CE). The potential interviewees were identified through former contacts and themember list of the Swedish and Finnish Chambers of Commerce, based on thefollowing criteria: first, the entrepreneur should have been living outside the COOfor at least 1 year (Sasse and Thielemann 2005); second, the entrepreneur’s firm shouldhave been involved in international business from the start; third, the interviewee musthave been running the business for at least three consecutive years in Hong Kong; and,finally, the firm should not be a subsidiary.
The chosen entrepreneurs represent SMEs acting internationally from their incep-tions in Hong Kong. The entrepreneurial owners have been living in Hong Kong for 5to 25 years and range in age from 29 to 57 years. Information about the entrepreneurs issummarized in Table 1 below.
The interviews were conducted in April–May 2016. An introductory letter by e-mailwas followed by a Skype video-call interview. Conducting the interviews on Skype wasa limitation; in that, it allowed for eye contact but not for a view of body language. Aninterview guide was developed (presented in full in Table 4). In addition to factualinformation about the firms and the entrepreneurs, the questions centered on theirtransnational entrepreneurship experience, such as opportunity recognition, opportunitytype, level of internationalization of the company (e.g., inspired by Johanson andMartín 2015), and institutional environment (e.g., inspired by Tang 2008). The inter-viewees were given space to elaborate their thoughts in rich descriptions. The inter-views lasted about an hour, and to enhance confirmability (Guba and Lincoln 1994;Lincoln and Guba 1985), they were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The participantswere thereafter asked to confirm the transcripts of the recordings. The interviews weredone in English, one of the two official languages of Hong Kong and the one used bythe businesses. Conducting the interviews in English, the second language of both theinterviewer and the interviewee, limited the ability to convey nuances but eliminatedthe need to translate the responses and risk making mistakes in that process.
After the first interview, the data were coded with open coding by the second author.Thereafter, the consecutive interviews were coded in same manner and compared withthe categories of the previously collected and coded interview data. When the series ofinterviews was completed, there was a second reading of the material by the firstauthor, checking the conceptualizing and categorizing of data and comparing the codeswith those of previous studies. At this stage, the word-for-word interview data wereimported into Nvivo, a computer-based analysis program. The original data were firstcoded according to the conceptual framework of the study, but the definitions were thenallowed to arise from the data to reveal the special characteristics of the cases (Mainelaand Puhakka 2009). Themes were sought within cases as well as in cross-case patternsearches (Terjesen and Elam 2009). The codes were not fixed but were continuously
scrutinized and refined in an abductive process of successive iterations between theoryand data (Dubois and Gadde 2002). Answering calls for multilevel analysis (Madsenand Servais 1997; Peiris et al. 2012), we looked for connections between the differentlevels of analysis (individual, firm, context) in order to create a context-sensitiveunderstanding of the entrepreneurial behaviors. A selection of actual quotes from theprotocols is presented in support of the related claims.
The research context
Reviewing the immigrant entrepreneurship literature, Aliaga-Isla and Rialp (2013)noted that almost all studies deal with immigration from less-developed countries toadvanced economies and that Asia is represented by Australia only. Addressing thesegaps, this study focuses on migrants relocating from one advanced economy to anotherand, adding to the range of Asian countries, Hong Kong was chosen as COR.
Hong Kong, officially Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR),has been an autonomous territory since 1 July 1997, when sovereignty over HongKong was transferred from the United Kingdom to the People’s Republic of China(PRC). BOne country–two systems^ alludes to the idea that within the territory ofPRC, the main body of China uses a socialist system, but Hong Kong, Macau, andTaiwan use a capitalist system. The HKSAR government provides very fastbusiness registration processes (Timmons and Spinelli 2004). It is seen as theleast interventionist government in the world (Mok 2005), and entrepreneurialflexibility, alertness, and exploitation of opportunities are presented as underlyingthe dynamics of the HKSAR economy (Yu 1998). Moreover, the proximity of themainland Chinese market attracts foreign firms and entrepreneurs to the city.Countless Hong Kong companies provide company secretarial services withaccounting, auditing, patent, and banking services, including company incorpora-tion and taxation, in both HKSAR and mainland China.
Transnational entrepreneurship: Seven cases
Opportunity identification by transnational entrepreneurs
Experiential knowledge in the form of foreign business knowledge and foreign insti-tutional knowledge is expected to improve entrepreneurial qualities by resulting in acapability to recognize, manage, and act on entrepreneurial opportunities (Erikssonet al. 1997). According to Eriksson et al., education, that is, learning from others, is away to gain business knowledge that facilitates starting and running a company. In thepresent study, however, although four of the entrepreneurs (A, B, E, G) had at least aBachelors’ degree, none of them put any great emphasis on the knowledge acquiredthrough these studies: B described the education, rather, as Ba brief introduction tobusiness.^ Notably, A, B, E, and G had been studying in Asia and could therefore havebeen expected to acquire valuable knowledge about the Asian context in that way.However, their language proficiencies, substantial experiences of living and working/studying abroad, extensive overseas travel, and prior employment/business experiencesabroad indicate a high degree of international orientation (Dichtl et al. 1990) that may
160 Lundberg H., Rehnfors A.
explain their view on the limited contribution of their education to their entrepreneurialcapabilities. Almost all the entrepreneurs had some experience of other countriesthrough studies, travel, or work. Also, they had either some (A, B, D, E) or extensive(F, G) work experience in Asia prior to starting their businesses in Hong Kong that hadresulted in foreign business knowledge as well as institutional knowledge. C, whofollowed a family member to Hong Kong, had international experience from previouswork in the home country.
The majority of the entrepreneurs in this study also had some previous entrepre-neurial experience, further facilitating the decision to start a company. Three entrepre-neurs (A, B, D) grew up in an entrepreneurial environment with a close relative beingan entrepreneur, for example, B: BThere was that kind of role model, my uncle was anentrepreneur and I was looking up to him so maybe there was something that wasgrowing inside me,^ and A: BMy father had a small construction company so I haveprobably ‘inherited’ something from there.^
Two of them (B, D) started their first businesses as youngsters in their COO, BIstarted a business when I was 16 years old… and was still at that business when Imoved to Hong Kong^ (D), and BI had a small business collecting golf balls at anearby golf course. I washed the balls and sold them back to the players^ (B).Without role models, entrepreneur F started his first business even while studyingin the third year of high school and dropped out to sell his products by mail order.When he was 17, he opened his first shop. The other three (C, E, G) did not havetheir own previous experience of entrepreneurship, but they had been employed inan entrepreneurial environment. The personal experiences of these individuals haddeveloped entrepreneurial qualities (Shane 2000), and they saw transnationalentrepreneurship as a career option (Gnyawali and Fogel 1994).
Turning cultural challenges into a competitive advantage
In addition to entrepreneurial knowledge, skills in managing cultural differences arerequired of entrepreneurs working in foreign countries, and especially so when there arelarge cultural differences. You can lose a customer by overstepping intangible businessrules, as exemplified by D: BI learned that [in Hong Kong] you can lose business if youe-mail someone asking for a reply.^
The transnational entrepreneurs of our cases were characterized by a global mindset,cultural intelligence, and cross-cultural competence (Zahra et al. 2005) resulting fromspending time abroad in various countries, not the least in their new COR. Notably,only of them (F, with experiences of entrepreneurship from other parts of Asia) createda business upon arrival in the COR. Cross-cultural competence is not accessed over-night. Some cognitive and normative cultural differences may remain unnoticed forsome time and only emerge and become actualized in meetings with people in businesssituations.
The Hong Kong people, they look Chinese, but behave like the Westernpeople—but then they are suddenly super Chinese, with very deep Chinesevalues and so on. It was a little bit difficult to categorize them in the beginning…Hong Kong people are mixed, in between East and West. (E)
When I came to Asia I didn’t pay any attention to the culture differences…WhenI started my own Hong Kong business and really started to do sales and business-developing work in Mainland China with Chinese customers, then there were alot of cultural clashes. (A)
With time, a deeper understanding of the impact of cultural normative issues anddifferences in running a company are revealed and adapted to, as illustrated by B:
In Hong Kong the partners and employees, they listen to you, they listen to you verycarefully, and they pretend to agree with you, but that means nothing, for nothingreally happens. It takes quite a long time to understand when things actually areprogressing and when nothing is happening—I guess two or three years until you getit and understand how you should manage things, if you want the things to be done.
For A, the East–West meeting was facilitated by a partnership:
I have already spent a decade in China and my Chinese co-founder has been adecade in the US, so we both understand a little bit of the culture of the other side.That has been really helpful.
F, who had been doing business in Asia since 1995, summarized an insight that wasexpressed by all the informants: BAfter many years, I understand that there are so manymore layers that it is very difficult to understand.^ Over time, the personal experiencesand capabilities of these entrepreneurs reduced the liability of foreignness (Hymer1976; Zaheer 1995). They understood and could manage local business practices andcustoms and knew how to interact with local parties such as employees, customers, andsuppliers. These capabilities reduced the risk of misunderstandings and conflicts andallowed them to bridge the psychic distance (Johanson and Vahlne 2009). In the nextstep, their cross-cultural bridging abilities (Piaskowska and Trojanowski 2014) couldbe leveraged for entering other foreign markets as well.
A cross-cultural bridging ability is not enough, though. Many individuals with thisability never think of starting a business. In these cases, however, their internationalorientation and entrepreneurial qualities meant that the entrepreneurs had the cognitivewherewithal to identify this ability as a competitive advantage that represented abusiness opportunity, and they saw themselves as having knowledge enough to makethis opportunity into a successful business venture.
Four influences driving the early internationalization of firms have been suggested:entrepreneurial, business, location, and network-specific factors (Zucchella et al. 2007).In addition, these cases indicate that the cross-cultural bridging capability of transna-tional entrepreneurs is an important dimension at the individual level.
Transnational entrepreneurship opportunities and ventures
Three entrepreneurs (C, D, G) came to Hong Kong for work reasons, and only one ofthem, C, had an intention to start a business from the beginning: BI just thought I’d startmy own business^ (C). Like entrepreneur B, C found an arbitrage opportunity in sellingproducts from Asia to the COO. D imported products from Nordic countries to help a
162 Lundberg H., Rehnfors A.
friend and saw a potential to create his own business. Informant G lost her job andconsidered moving back to Sweden, but realized that staying in Hong Kong impliedeasy access to the rest of Asia. She identified a niche for companies without their ownbuying office and a possibility to provide them with services similar to what she hadbeen doing at her job. She thus found a way to turn work experiences into her ownbusiness. BI was kind of looking forward to trying myself—if I could be successful inrunning something according to how I wanted to … serve customers and do my ownbusiness. That is why I decided to stay.^ Entrepreneurs A and F also saw opportunitiesto sell services to firms in the COO. The initial intention of entrepreneur A was to doconsultations and business development, but that changed after 5 years when he met aChinese man with whom he started a new international business venture assistingexporters in his COO. Entrepreneur F relocated to Hong Kong with the intention toopen a new business: Bbasically the reason to come to Hong Kong was… to workoutside the Scandinavian and Swedish market right away.^ Forming a venture was forthese entrepreneurs not a last resort or a means to survive, but rather an excitingopportunity. In contrast to previous findings in the context of ethnic entrepreneurship(Aliaga-Isla and Rialp 2013), their decisions to become entrepreneurs were driven byopportunity rather than by necessity. The opportunities identified were strongly relatedto their previous work or personal experiences, and the opportunities they developedare accordingly of varying nature (see Table 2 below).
Table 2 shows that these entrepreneurs all have business relations with their COO,but in varying forms. Four of them (A, B, C, D) developed export opportunities,initially to the COO, but later also to other markets, with A and D combining exportwith import. Company A initially sourced industrial design in Finland, selling it toChina, while D imported materials and technology from the Nordic countries.
Table 2 First opportunity characteristics
Interviewee Opportunity recognition Opportunity type
A Consulting firm: help technology companies with somethingto sell to producers in China
Assist firms in COO with sellingto COR
B Privately bought a web camera in HK that was of very goodquality; could sell such equipment on the Finnishequivalent of eBay, Huuto.net
Arbitrage between COR andCOO
C Export Arbitrage between COR andCOO
D Started importing materials for a friend in HK, and then withhim started a business to develop quality houses in aNordic standard
Trading a different standard ofmaterials from COO to CO
E Production management (sourcing and quality control) inChina for Finnish customers
Assist firms in COO withproduction in COR
F Services: product development, compliance, recruiting,design, quality control, etc.
Assist firms in COO withproduction in CO
G Saw a niche for companies without their own buying officesout here: that they would need services like qualitycontrol, sourcing, and compliance auditing
Company B mainly exports products from China to customers in the COO. Thecultural differences are apparent at the company level, and the adaptation to thebusiness culture is even distinguishable in entrepreneur B as a person:
I stopped believing in things, stopped having so many expectations. Some kind ofBI believe when I see^ approach… You need to make controls every week andevery month.
Manufacturing products in China entails similar cultural issues for exporter C. For boththese exporters, the COO remains their main market, with 75% (C) and 95% (B) oftotal sales.
The three service providers (E, F, G)mainlyworkwithmainland Chinamanufacturers. Theystarted with customers from their COO but have expanded their customer base to other marketsas well. The customers of F are from several European countries, the USA, and Australia andare served by 32 employees. Company G is just opening an office in India, working withservices other than those they provide on the Chinesemarket, and have customers all over Asia.They have 10 employees in Hong Kong. One of the companies (E) has located its office acrossthe border in mainland China, and four of its six employees are Chinese.
The other companies (F, G) have hired both Hong Kong Chinese and mainlandChinese employees. Most of their business is conducted in China. In the service-providing companies, one of the Nordic owners speaks Cantonese (E) and one speaksMandarin Chinese (G), which facilitates their work, but, as stated by E, BLanguage is notreally the issue; culture is a bigger issue, I would say, in our operation.^ All three havemainland China as their main market, with E, 95%; F, 100%; and G, 80% of their totalsales on the Chinese market. Table 3 provides a summary of the firm characteristics.
We find that moving from northern Europe to Hong Kong and doing business inHong Kong and mainland China has meant encountering cultures that are very differentfrom the COO. Getting to know the COR has, in combination with their internationalorientation and entrepreneurial qualities, resulted in cognitive capabilities to spot botharbitrage and service opportunities for business exchange between these countries(Zahra et al. 2005). Their business did, however, not rest at that stage. As shown inTable 3, they have all identified opportunities to include other markets as well. Theythus fulfill the commonly used criteria for born globals, although acting outside thehigh-tech area of business (Welch et al. 2016). In total, they now employ 103employees in several countries, including their COR and their COO. This contributionto economic development, not the least of both their COR and COO, further underlinesthe economic potential of transnational entrepreneurship.
The institutional and cultural context of Hong Kong
The entrepreneurs in the study all find the Hong Kong institutional environment veryentrepreneur friendly.
When you are dealing with the Government—it’s efficient, it’s very structured,there is no corruption. You read on websites what you should do and then that’sthe way it works. So it’s a very uncomplicated, transparent place for business…There’s not much administration. (G)
Hong Kong is experienced as a dynamic society where business and entrepreneurshipare appreciated and supported. BThe people give support,^ said G, and E explained thatadvice and help is offered without one owing anything in return:
HongKong is a very dynamic society and people help other people a lot—when youmeet somebody and you talk about business, they often say, Bhey, I know somebodywho can help you,^ and then they call them for you immediately and that’s amazing.And they are not requiring anything in return… It’s great. I love it! (E)
The entrepreneurs found it easy to start the business, not the least administratively, asthere are plenty of companies acting as corporate service providers. They consider itmore convenient than the way the same things are done in the home countries:
A big difference is how fast different things can be put into action. I would say itwas a little like night and day. (C)
It is very simple, you can start a company in the morning and have your bankaccount opened. It is up and running right away and you can start to invoice in theafternoon. (F)
Five of the entrepreneurs have experience of entrepreneurship in their home countries,and one of them (G) is just setting up a company there. The Finnish entrepreneurs findthat Hong Kong has fewer rules and regulations, is less bureaucratic, and does notburden the enterprise with administrative duties to the same degree as in Finland:
In Hong Kong, the Government does not interfere in your business… Finland hasso many rules about everything and it’s very complicated for a new company…and lots of bureaucracy, which means constant efforts for you all the time. (E)
The Swedish entrepreneurs think that setting up a company in Sweden has been madeeasier and more straightforward, but still is more expensive than in Hong Kong. Also,hiring people is seen as more complicated, requiring more commitment, costs, andadministration. The bureaucracy and processing times in Sweden were also highlight-ed: Bmuch more cumbersome, more bureaucracy, much longer processing times^ (F).
While incorporation is seen as a positive experience, the institutional environmenthas its weak sides, according to some (D, F) of the entrepreneurs.
InHongKong,when the people are doing something they are used to and there is a clearprotocol, it’s very efficient, but if there ever is a situation where people don’t knowhow—or what—to do, or there is not a protocol, it can be a little bit complicated. (F)
But overall (A, B, C, D, E, G), the stance of the government is experienced as supportive,allowing them to concentrate on entrepreneurship. The government may also give financialsupport to entrepreneurs: BWhen I participated at an exhibition, the HongKong governmentfunded 50% of the cost. Hong Kong is particularly business friendly and flexible^ (C).
The entrepreneurs in these cases thus found it easy to interact with the Hong Kongauthorities and to learn the rules of the game (Ilhan-Nas et al. 2011), which facilitated
166 Lundberg H., Rehnfors A.
starting a business. These findings therefore further underline that the regulatorycontext can facilitate entrepreneurship by being transparent and supportive (Baumolet al. 2007; Tang 2008; Yeung 2002). Using the supportive context of Hong Kong, theyall operate on the mainland Chinese market, which institutionally would cause muchgreater challenges if they were to locate their businesses there.
Discussion and conclusions
The transnational entrepreneur
International entrepreneurship research has seldom focused on the individual entrepreneurs(Cumming et al. 2009; Drori et al. 2006). As well, within the realm of transnationalentrepreneurship, studies addressing the individual have been called for (e.g., Elo andFreiling 2015), since individual characteristics are regarded as key to internationalization(Jones et al. 2011). Paying attention to differences among transnational entrepreneurs,instead of treating them as a homogeneous group (Westhead et al. 2001), improves the in-depth understanding of their entrepreneurial processes and increases the predictive andexplanatory power of transnational entrepreneurship models. Aiming to deepen our under-standing of the process of opportunity identification and the varying types of opportunitiesdeveloped by transnational entrepreneurs, the present study therefore explores individualcharacteristics of seven transnational entrepreneurs, the types of opportunities (ventures)developed, and the impact of the institutional and cultural contexts they acted within.
One’s personal background, in the form of education and prior experiences, has beenseen as formative for an individual’s mindset, and the resulting knowledge is regarded asa key aspect of entrepreneurial qualities (Shane 2000; Welch and Luostarinen 1988).The findings of this study confirm this, showing that five out of seven informants (A, B,C, D, F) had a formative string emerging from previous experiences as entrepreneurs orfrom an entrepreneurial environment, indicating a positive stance about how to be andact and how to make a living as an entrepreneur. They furthermore had some businessknowledge to start with, as well as knowledge of the institutional context of the CORfrom living and working there before starting their companies. There was thus valuableexperiential knowledge (Eriksson et al. 1997) from the start. Their human capital islikely to facilitate identification of a broader range of opportunity types compared withmigrants possessing lesser human capital.
Human capital, operationalized as years of formal education, has often been used as apredictor of an individual’s ability to identify and develop entrepreneurial opportunities (Shane2003; Vinogradov and Kolvereid 2007). The entrepreneurs in this study had to a large extentbeen Blearning from others^ (Eriksson et al. 1997) in the form of formal education. However,even the informants who had been studying in Asia (A, B, E, G) regarded this educationalknowledge as a supplement, only providing some basics for business and entrepreneurship.The benefits of formal education underlined in previous studies (Shane 2003; Vinogradov andKolvereid 2007) were thus not confirmed. This indicated that absence of education effectsmay, however, be explained by their international orientation (Dichtl et al. 1990) beingdeveloped in other ways. All of them had traveled a lot, and six (A, B, D, E, F, G) out ofthese seven entrepreneurs had previous work and/or study experiences from Hong Kong,mainland China, or other parts of the world before starting their businesses. This study thus
contributes to internationalization theory by indicating that personal international experiences,like international travel and living abroad, downplay the importance of formal education in theability to identify and develop transnational entrepreneurial opportunities. It furthermore seemslikely that personal experiences and capabilities of this kind are more frequently found amongimmigrants from developed countries than among immigrants from less-developed countries,since traveling and living abroad is financially demanding. This difference further underlinesthe importance of addressing commonalities as well as differences among entrepreneurs intransnational entrepreneurship research.
The cases confirm that immigrants may be uniquely qualified as internationalentrepreneurs from the start in terms of international orientation by having a substantialexperience and knowledge of two cultures (COO and COR) before starting theirbusiness, not the least as these two cultures usually make up their initial markets.Having learned many rules of the game (Ilhan-Nas et al. 2011), they know how to adaptboth as individuals and on a firm level in relation to customers and suppliers (Johansonand Vahlne 2009). Their psychic distance and their liability of foreignness (Hymer1976; Zaheer 1995) have thereby been reduced before starting the business.
Immigrant entrepreneurs are, however, often depicted as being driven into theirentrepreneurship by negative circumstances, such as lack of knowledge and unemploy-ment, that is, entrepreneurship by necessity rather than in response to an opportunity(Aliaga-Isla and Rialp 2013). This understanding is likely a consequence of the pre-dominance of studies dealing with immigration from less-developed countries to ad-vanced economies (Aliaga-Isla and Rialp 2013). The results of the present study differ,as the entrepreneurial incentives were opportunity based rather than necessity based(Aliaga-Isla and Rialp 2013). These entrepreneurs were not driven into entrepreneur-ship, but saw it as an attractive career endeavor (Gnyawali and Fogel 1994) entered intoby choice, which likely is related to their origin in a developed economy and the humancapital developed there. This finding therefore underlines the importance of separatingvarious forms of transnational entrepreneurship to fully catch their nuances.
Transnational opportunities and ventures
Most entrepreneurship studies are unilocational in their spatial unit of analysis (Yeung2002), and also, within international entrepreneurship multicountry studies are rare(Terjesen et al. 2016). In contrast, a transnational entrepreneur is by definition familiarwith two different national contexts, and opportunities may be identified throughcomparisons between these two contexts. A prevalent characteristic of transnationalentrepreneurship is opportunity recognition based on introducing processes or productsto the COR familiar from the COO or based on use of the entrepreneurs’ contacts in thehome country (Portes et al. 2002). This study showed, however, that although this wasthe case for two entrepreneurs, others identified opportunities for acting in the oppositedirection, that is, from their COR, Hong Kong, or neighboring China, to their COO, orthey performed both import and export between these markets.
Notably, however, in the present study, a fourth category was also identified. For four ofthe entrepreneurs (A, E, F, G), the business idea was to facilitate international trade. Bylearning to master not only the context of their COO but also that of their COR and theneighboring China, they developed a competitive advantage implying an entrepreneurialopportunity in selling their talents (Tung 2008) to firms still lacking in these respects.
168 Lundberg H., Rehnfors A.
Notably, this was achieved on the basis of non-financial resources (Kyle 1999); rather, theyapplied contextualized knowledge and cross-cultural bridging capabilities (Piaskowskaand Trojanowski 2014) in smoothing business relationships that otherwise mighthave been threatened by cultural differences causing misunderstandings and otherkinds of friction. Acting in a relationship-middlemen position, they providedinstitutional competence bridging psychic distances (Johanson and Vahlne 2009),thereby reducing the liability of foreignness (Hymer 1976; Zaheer 1995) affectingfirms entering a foreign market. For their customers, this service functioned as ashortcut in otherwise very time-consuming relationship development processes.
Middleman entrepreneurs have been described as immigrants who Btake advantage ofethnic resources such as language, networks, and skills to trade between their host and originsocieties, while retaining their ethnic identity and non-assimilation stance as an integral partof their business strategy^ (Drori et al. 2009, p. 1004). The business facilitators in our studyalso applied language and cultural skills, but in relationship-middleman positions, facilitatingtrade between their host and origin societies by selling the service of bridging culturaldifferences between the parties of a business relationship (customer and seller). This type offirm is likely quite common, especially for business exchange between culturally veryseparated markets. Nevertheless, these kinds of service opportunities have previously beenleft out of classifications (Landolt 2001) and studies (Sequiera et al. 2009). In fact,opportunity as a concept is often not defined or discussed in international entrepreneurshipresearch (Mainela et al. 2014). This lack of attention is unfortunate, as opportunity has beenput forward as the concept best capturing entrepreneurship as a research field(Murphy 2011), and since business-facilitating service opportunities likely repre-sent an important potential for transnational entrepreneurship. Identifying thisopportunity type thus represents an important contribution not only to transnationalentrepreneurship research but also to international entrepreneurship theory. Wetherefore call for further studies of service opportunities, not the least studiesaddressing relationship-middleman positions.
These cases indicate that the cross-cultural bridging capability of transnational entrepre-neurs is an important facilitator of early firm internationalization and an important dimensionat the individual level, driving the early internationalization of firms. The transnationalentrepreneurs in our cases initially focused on business exchange between the COO andCOR, but they included additional country markets soon after inception. This findingillustrates that international migration contributes to increased global trade, starting from,but not limited to, business exchange between the COR and the COO. The findingsfurthermore broaden the scope of internationalization theory on born globals by showingthat transnational entrepreneurs create born global firms, also for business models not basedon technologically advanced products or services, that is, the kind of companies otherwiseoften associated with the born global concept (e.g., Freeman et al. 2006; Knight andCavusgil 2004; Moen and Servais 2002; Rennie 1993; Welch et al. 2016).
Finally, the cases show that the business exchange can go in any direction between theCOO and the COR. In other words, in the case of transnational entrepreneurs, there is noobvious Bdomesticmarket^ from the start, as assumed in the dominating internationalizationtheories (e.g., Johanson and Vahlne 2009). This finding thus point at a gap in traditionalinternationalization theories and underlines the importance of developing theory addressingsuch gaps. It thereby motivates the emergence of transnational entrepreneurship as atheoretical domain, as transnational entrepreneurship in certain respects may follow a
different logic than the one described in traditional internationalization theory (e.g., Johansonand Vahlne 1977, 2009).
Institutional and cultural contexts
In contrast to previous literature focusing on migration from less-developed countries toadvanced economies (Aliaga-Isla and Rialp 2013), the present study takes context intoaccount by focusing on entrepreneurs who have migrated from one developed economy(Sweden or Finland) to another developed economy (HKSAR). Mastering of twodifferent cultural contexts gave our interviewees access to knowledge implying in-creased capabilities of opportunity identification (Shane 2000; Venkataraman 1997).These experiences moreover resulted in a competitive advantage, since learning tomaster contextual influences of different national cultures is a competence that is time-consuming to develop (Zahra et al. 2005). This competitive advantage forms another,more positive, side of the coin of migration and drivers for transnational entrepreneur-ship than negative aspects like employment discrimination (e.g., Li 2001).
Identifying an opportunity is nevertheless not enough; a venture has to be formed if theopportunity is to be exploited. Our interviewees unanimously praised the regulative andnormative institutional conditions in Hong Kong, which lends support to arguments that abusiness-favorable institutional environment facilitates and encourages entrepreneurship(Baumol et al. 2007; Hopp and Stephan 2012). All but one of these transnational entrepre-neurs identified opportunities related to the neighboring mainland China, but chose to locatetheir businesses in Hong Kong for institutional reasons. This illustration of how theinstitutional context affects entrepreneurship contributes to filling a gap in entrepreneurshipresearch that previously has left such factors understudied (Bruton et al. 2010).
The cases furthermore illustrate that experiences of two market contexts that are verydifferent are likely to result in the ability to spot arbitrage opportunities related to import/export of goods, and also service opportunities. The cognitive alertness capability of theinterviewees had been developed by living in the two different contexts of the COO andthe COR, and six entrepreneurs (A, C, D, E, F, G) identified services and products thatwere missing either on the Asian market or on the market in the COO, while the seventh(B) sensed a demand in his COO for products he could find for a better price on the localmarkets in Hong Kong. These findings thus further stress the value of contextual, not theleast cultural, knowledge, for spotting opportunities for international business.
Limitations and practical implications
As with all research, our study and findings come with limitations. This study wascarried out among a limited number of entrepreneurs representing specific nationalcontexts, which affects the generalizability of its results. Further studies of transnationalentrepreneurs moving from and to developed economies are needed to test the gener-alizability of these findings and make transnational entrepreneurship theory morecontext sensitive. Moreover, addressing individual, firm, and contextual levels ofanalysis allowed for a holistic representation of transnational entrepreneurship, but thisapproach also implied a limited depth in the study of each of these levels.
Our findings illustrate that transnational entrepreneurs may make important contri-butions to the economic development of the local environment, but also that they are
170 Lundberg H., Rehnfors A.
not a homogeneous group. Immigrants from developed economies are likely to differfrom immigrants from less-developed economies in terms of human, social, cultural,and financial capital. Public support thus needs to be adapted to a variety of needs andambitions. Furthermore, policymakers need to consider the institutional impact onentrepreneurship, as business-friendly institutions with low barriers for establishingand maintaining a business will attract, facilitate, and support entrepreneurship.
Annex 1
Table 4 Interview guide
Entrepreneurial and international background?
Educational background? (and languages)
Any family members who are/were entrepreneurs?
Previous experience of entrepreneurship?
Previous experience of foreign countries?
Previous experience of Asian cultures?
Why and how did you start your business in Hong Kong?
Initial intention with your entrepreneurship? Has it changed?
The length of stay in Hong Kong when you started your entrepreneurship?
When and how did you start your business?
Were you connected to any social networks?
The ownership of the company: sole or in partnership?
Entrepreneurial experience in HK?
Years operating this company?
Number of years since the first sales/export/import order/regularly exporting/importing/providing service?
Number of countries entered?
Number of countries of customers?
Number of employees?
The level of internationalization of the company?
Percent sales/country?
Institutional environment in Hong Kong?
Information about and support provided by state and local government before/while starting up/after startup?
Support provided from other community groups prior to startup/while starting up/after startup?
Bank and/or investor support?
Registration and taxation issues and other regulations?
Any differences institution-wise between host and home countries?
Cultural environment in Hong Kong?
Experience of culture and business culture in general?
If experienced cultural distance—what difficulties/misunderstandings?
Experience of contacts with the local authorities?
Contacts with distributors/manufacturers and other parties in business?
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 InternationalLicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and repro-duction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide alink to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
References
Aldrich HE, Waldinger R (1990) Ethnicity and entrepreneurship. Annu Rev Sociol 16(1):111–135Aliaga-Isla R, Rialp A (2012) How Do Information and Experience Play a Role in the Discovery of
Entrepreneurial Opportunities? The Case of Latin-American Immigrants in Barcenlona. Lat Am BusRev 13(1):59–80
Aliaga-Isla R, Rialp A (2013) Systematic review of immigrant entrepreneurship literature: previous findingsand ways forward. Entrep Reg Dev 25(9–10):819–844
Baumol WJ, Litan RE, Schramm CJ (2007) Good capitalism, bad capitalism, and the economics ofgrowth and prosperity. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=985843 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.985843
Bruton GD, AhlstromD, Li HL (2010) Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: where are we now and wheredo we need to move in the future? Entrep Theory Pract 34(3):421–440
Chandra Y, Styles C, Wilkinsson I (2009) The recognition of first time international entrepreneurial oppor-tunities: evidence from firms in knowledge-based industries. Int Mark Rev 26(1):30–61
Chiles TH, Bluedorn AC, Gupta VK (2007) Beyond creative destruction and entrepreneurial discovery: aradical Austrian approach to entrepreneurship. OrgStud 28(4):467–493
Cloninger PA, Oviatt B (2007) Service content and the internationalization of young ventures: an empiricaltest. Entrep Theory Pract 31(2):233–256
Coviello NE (2006) The network dynamics of international new ventures. J Int Bus Stud 37(5):713–731Cumming D, Sapienza HJ, Siegel DS, Wright M (2009) International entrepreneurship: managerial and policy
implications. Strateg Entrep J 3(4):283–296Dana L, Morris M (2007) Towards a synthesis: a model of immigrant and ethnic entrepreneurship. In: Dana L
(ed) Handbook of research on ethnic minority entrepreneurship: a co-evolutionary view on resourcemanagement. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 803–811
Delmar F, Shane S (2003) Does business planning facilitate the development of new ventures? Strateg ManagJ 24(12):1165–1185
Dichtl E, Koeglmayr HG, Mueller S (1990) International orientation as a precondition for export success. J IntBus Stud 21(1):23–40
Drori I, Honig B, Ginsberg A (2006) Transnational entrepreneurship: toward a unifying theoretical framework.Acad Manag Proc 2006(1):Q1–Q6
Drori I, Honig B, Wright M (2009) Transnational entrepreneurship: an emergent field of study. Entrep TheoryPract 33(5):1001–1022
Dubois A, Gadde LE (2002) Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research. J Bus Res 55(7):553–560
Dyer JH, Singh H (1998) The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizationalcompetitive advantage. Acad Manag Rev 23(4):660–679
Emontspool J, Servais P (2017) Cross-border entrepreneurship in a global world: a critical reconceptualisation.Eur J Int Manag 11(3):262–279
Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev 14(4):532–550Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME (2007) Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad Manag
J 50(1):25–32Elo M, Freiling J (2015) Transnational entrepreneurship: an introduction to the volume. Am J Entrep 8(2):1–8Elo M, Riddle L (2016) Diaspora business. Inter-Disciplinary Press, OxfordEriksson K, Johanson J, Majkgård A, Sharma DD (1997) Experiential knowledge and costs in the interna-
tionalization process. J Int Bus Stud 28(2):337–360Etemad H (2004) International entrepreneurship as a dynamic adaptive system: towards a grounded theory. J
Int Entrep 2(1–2):5–59Etemad H (2016) International entrepreneurship as a young field of scholarly inquiry and its relationship with
the knowledge network of five related disciplines. J Int Entrep 14(2):157–167Freeman S, Edwards R, Schroder B (2006) How smaller born-global firms use networks and alliances to
overcome constraints to rapid internationalization. J Int Mark 14(3):33–63
George NM, Parida V, Lahti T, Wincent J (2016) A systematic literature review of entrepreneurial opportunityrecognition: insights on influencing factors. Int Ent Manag J 12(2):309–350
Gnyawali DR, Fogel DS (1994) Environments for entrepreneurship development: key dimensions andresearch implications. Entrep. Theory Pract 18:43–43
Guba EG, Lincoln YS (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds)Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, London, pp 163–194
Hilmersson M, Papaioannou S (2015) SME international opportunity scouting—empirical insights on itsdeterminants and outcomes. J Int Entrep 13(3):186–211
Hofstede G (2010) The GLOBE debate: back to relevance. J Int Bus Stud 41(8):1339–1346Hofstede G (1980) Motivation, leadership, and organization: do American theories apply abroad? Org Dyn
9(1):42–63Hopp C, Stephan U (2012) The influence of socio-cultural environments on the performance of
nascent entrepreneurs: community culture, motivation, self-efficacy and start-up success. EntrepReg Dev 24(9–10):917–945
Hymer S (1976) The international operations of national firms: a study of direct foreign investment. MITPress, Boston
Ilhan-Nas T, Sahin K, Cilingir Z (2011) International ethnic entrepreneurship: antecedents, outcomes andenvironmental context. Int Bus Rev 20(6):614–626
Johanson M, Martín OM (2015) The incremental expansion of born internationals: a comparison of new andold born internationals. Int Bus Rev 24(3):476–496
Johanson J, Mattsson L-G (1987) Interorganizational relations in industrial systems—a network approachcompared with the transaction cost approach. Int Stud Manag Org 17(1):34–48
Johanson J, Vahlne JE (1977) The internationalization process of the firm—a model of knowledge develop-ment and increasing foreign market commitments. J Int Bus Stud 8(1):23–32
Johanson J, Vahlne JE (2009) The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: from liability offoreignness to liability of outsidership. J Int Bus Stud 40(9):1411–1431
Jones MV, Coviello N, Tang YK (2011) International entrepreneurship research (1989–2009): a domainontology and thematic analysis. J Business Venturing 26(6):632–659
Kirzner I (1973) Competition and entrepreneurship, 1st edn. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoKirzner I (1979) Perception, opportunity, and profit: studies in the theory of entrepreneurship. University of
Chicago Press, ChicagoKlapper L, Laeven L, Rajan R (2004) Business environment and firm entry: evidence from international data
(No. w10380). National Bureau of Economic Research, Washington DCKnight GA, Cavusgil ST (2004) Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm. J Int Bus
Stud 35(2):124–141Kloosterman R (2000) Immigrant entrepreneurship and the institutional context: a theoretical exploration. In:
Rath J (ed) Immigrant businesses, the economic, politico-institutional and social environment. Macmillan,Basingstoke, pp 90–106
Kontinen T, Ojala A (2011) International opportunity recognition among small and medium-sized familyfirms. J Small Bus Manag 49(3):490–514
Kyle D (1999) The Otavalo trade diaspora: social capital and transnational entrepreneurship. Ethnic RacialStud 22(2):422–446
Landolt P (2001) Salvadoran economic transnationalism: embedded strategies for household maintenance,immigrant incorporation, and entrepreneurial expansion. Glob Netw 1(3):217–242
Lee N (2015) Migrant and ethnic diversity, cities and innovation: firm effects or city effects? J Econ Geog15(4):769–796
Li PS (2001) Immigrants' propensity to self-employment: evidence from Canada. Int Migr Rev35(4):1106–1128
Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic inquiry, vol 75. Sage, Newbury ParkMadsen TK, Servais P (1997) The internationalization of born globals: an evolutionary process? Int Bus Rev
6(6):561–583Mainela T, Puhakka V (2009) Organising new business in a turbulent context: opportunity discovery and
effectuation for IJV development in transition markets. J Int Entrep 7(2):111–134Mainela T, Puhakka V, Servais P (2014) The concept of international opportunity in international entrepre-
neurship: a review and a research agenda. Int J Manag Rev 16(1):105–129Meir A, Baskind A (2006) Ethnic business entrepreneurship among urbanising Bedouin in the Negev, Israel.
Nomad People 10(1):71–100Merrilees B, Miller D, Tiessen J (1998) Serendipity, leverage and the process of entrepreneurial internation-
Moen Ø, Servais P (2002) Born global or gradual global? Examining the export behavior of small andmedium-sized enterprises. J Int Mark 10(3):49–72
Mok KH (2005) Fostering entrepreneurship: changing role of government and higher education governance inHong Kong. Res Pol 34(4):537–554
Murphy PJ (2011) A 2 × 2 conceptual foundation for entrepreneurial discovery theory. Entrep Theory Pract35(2):359–374
Oviatt BM, McDougall PP (1994) Toward a theory of international new ventures. J Int Bus Stud 25(1):45–64Piaskowska D, Trojanowski G (2014) Twice as smart? The importance of managers’ formative-years’
international experience for their international orientation and foreign acquisition decisions. Br J Manag25(1):40–57
Peiris IK, Akoorie ME, Sinha P (2012) International entrepreneurship: a critical analysis of studies in the pasttwo decades and future directions for research. J Int Entrep 10(4):279–324
Portes A, Guarnizo LE, Haller WJ (2002) Transnational entrepreneurs: an alternative form of immigranteconomic adaptation. Am Sociol Rev 67:278–298
Pratt MG (2009) For the lack of a boilerplate: tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research [editors’advice]. Acad Manag J 52(5):856–862
Rennie MW (1993) Born global. McKinsey Q 4:45–53Sasse G, Thielemann E (2005) A research agenda for the study of migrants and minorities in Europe. J
Common Mark Stud 43(4):655–671Sequeira JM, Carr JC, Rasheed AA (2009) Transnational entrepreneurship: determinants of firm type and
owner attributions of success. Entrep Theory Pract 33(5):1023–1044Shane SA (2003) A general theory of entrepreneurship: the individual-opportunity nexus. Edward Elgar,
CheltenhamShane S (2000) Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Org Sci 11(4):448–469Shane S, Venkataraman S (2000) The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Acad Manag Rev
25(1):217–226Tang J (2008) Environmental munificence for entrepreneurs: entrepreneurial alertness and commitment. Int J
Entrep Behav Res 14(3):128–151Terjesen S, Elam A (2009) Transnational entrepreneurs' venture internationalization strategies: a practice
theory approach. Entrep Theory Pract 33(5):1093–1120Terjesen S, Hessels J, Li D (2016) Comparative international entrepreneurship: a review and research agenda.
J Manag 42(1):299–344Timmons J, Spinelli S (2004) New venture strategies: entrepreneurship for the 21st century. Irwin-McGraw-
Hill, Burr RidgeTung RL (2008) Brain circulation, diaspora, and international competitiveness. Eur Manag J 26(5):298–304Venkataraman S (1997) The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. Adv Entrep Firm Emerg Growth
3(1):119–138Vinogradov E, Jørgensen EJB (2017) Differences in international opportunity identification between native
and immigrant entrepreneurs. J Int Entrep:1–22Vinogradov E, Kolvereid L (2007) Cultural background, human capital and self-employment rates among
immigrants in Norway. Entrep Reg Dev 19(4):359–376Viswanathan M, Rosa JA (2007) Product and market development for subsistence marketplaces: consumption
and entrepreneurship beyond literacy and resource barriers. In: Rosa JA, Viswanathan M (eds), productand market development for subsistence marketplaces. Advances in Int Manag, vol. 20. Emerald Group,Bingley 1–17
Welch LS, Luostarinen R (1988) Internationalization: evolution of a concept. Int Firm 14:83–98Welch C, Piekkari R, Plakoyiannaki E, Paavilainen-Mäntymäki E (2011) Theorising from case studies:
towards a pluralist future for international business research. J Int Bus Stud 42(5):740–762Welch C, Rumyantseva M, Hewerdine LJ (2016) Using case research to reconstruct concepts: a methodology
and illustration. Org Res Method 19(1):111–130Welter F (2012) All you need is trust? A critical review of the trust and entrepreneurship literature. Int Small
Bus J 30(3):193–212Welter F (2011) Contextualizing entrepreneurship—conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrep Theory
Pract 35(1):165–184Wong LL, Ng M (2002) The emergence of small transnational enterprise in Vancouver: the case of Chinese
entrepreneur immigrants. Int J Urban Reg Res 26(3):508–530Yeung HWC (1995) Qualitative personal interviews in international business research: Some lessons from a
study of Hong Kong transnational corporations. Int Bus Rev 4(3):313–339
174 Lundberg H., Rehnfors A.
Yeung HWC (2002) Entrepreneurship in international business: an institutional perspective. Asia Pac J Manag19(1):29–61
Yin RK (2013) Case study research: design and methods. Sage, Thousand OaksYu TFL (1998) Adaptive entrepreneurship and the economic development of Hong Kong. World Dev 26(5):
897–911Zaheer S (1995) Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Acad Manag J 38(2):341–363Zahra SA, Korri JS, Yu J (2005) Cognition and international entrepreneurship: implications for research on
international opportunity recognition and exploitation. Int Bus Rev 14(2):129–146Zhang M, Gao Q, Cho HS (2017) The effect of sub-national institutions and international entrepreneurial
capability on international performance of export-focused SMEs: evidence from China and South Korea.J Int Entrep 15(1):85–110
Zhou M (2004) Revisiting ethnic entrepreneurship: convergencies, controversies, and conceptual advance-ments. Int Migr Rev 38(3):1040–1074
Zucchella A, Palamara G, Denicolai S (2007) The drivers of the early internationalization of the firm. J WorldBus 42(3):268–280
